TF和Protaper镍钛器械在预备根管中的临床应用比较

摘要

目的：比较2种机用镍钛根管预备器械TF和Protaper在根管预备中的临床应用效果。方法将2013年3月至2014年5月宁夏医科大学总医院口腔内科门诊就诊患者需进行根管治疗的82颗患牙随机分成TF组（42颗）和Protaper组（40颗）。TF组患牙采用TF锉，Protaper组患牙采用Protaper锉，分别测量两组患牙各根管的弯曲度，比较两组不同程度弯曲根管的根管预备时间、并发症和根管成形及充填效果。结果 TF组根管预备时间[（24.50±9.49）s]明显短于Protaper组[（46.31±26.08）s]，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；两组根管预备时器械损伤情况、根管预备术后疼痛发生情况、根管成形及充填效果比较，差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）；两组根管预备时间均随着根管弯曲度的增加而增长。结论TF和Protaper 锉预备根管时根管成形效果均较好，与Protaper锉相比，TF锉根管预备时间更短，切割效率更高；TF和Protaper锉预备根管时，随着根管弯曲度的增加，根管预备时间增长。%Objective To compare the TF and Protaper two nickel-titanium root canal preparation system in the clinical effect of root canal preparation. Methods A total of 82 offending teeth required root canal treatment were randomly divided into two groups,ie,TF group(42) with TF filing and Protaper group(40) with Protaper filing. The root canal curvature degree of each root canal teeth in the two groups was measured. The different degrees of curved root canal root canal preparation time ,complica-tions and results were compared. Results Root canal preparation time TF group[(24.50±9.49)s] was obviously shorter than that of Protaper group[(46.31±26.08)s],which had statistically different significance;Two sets of equipment damage,the root canal preparation postoperative pain occurrence,the root canal shaping and filling effects were not significantly different(P>0.05). The root canal preparation time of the two groups was increased with growth of the root canal curvature degree. Conclusion TF and Protaper root canal file when root canals are better. Compared with Protaper group ,the TF group is shorter in root canal preparation time,higher cutting efficiency. The heavier the root canal curvature degree,the longer the root canal preparation time become.